#139 and Counting to 142
I went to see Iron and Wine last night, at the State Theatre. YES! Another concert. Keep them coming, I say. If Portland is going to continue bringing great acts to the state of Maine, I will spend my money. I saw Iron and Wine a couple of years ago, too, but this show was absolutely the better of the two shows. He had 3 back-up singers, 3 string instrument players, 2 sax players and a trumpet player accompanying him last night, which just made the show even better. I went with my dear friend, Vanessa. We went to Sapporo's for sushi before the show. I had vegetable sushi, so does that still count as sushi? I think so. Something about the feel of slimy, cold, uncooked seafood doesn't sit well in my mouth, throat, or stomach. Until I get over that, I'm happy with the cucumber and asparagus sushi rolls. Yum!
Yes, Vanessa and I may seem to do a lot together, but I must reiterate that we are only great friends. Always have been. Always will be (I can hope). We've known each other for almost a decade, after meeting through a mutual friend. We share a lot of common interests- music, shows, movies, palates. A love of breakfast food. I think we've been going to breakfast at least 2 Sundays per month for the past 6-7 years. She's married. Before that, she was in a relationship (a rather unhealthy one, which I stated to her on several occasions, as did other folks, so it's not like I had a hidden agenda of anything- in fact, I consider us almost like brother-and-sister, so everything I've said to her has come from a place of only wanting the best for her). I've been in relationships throughout our friendship as well. I'll admit, the majority of them were unhealthy, too. She's known/met all my ex-girlfriends and has only admitted to liking one of them, whom I think I blew it with, but what can you do. The past is the past.
I've been thinking about our friendship because Friday, after school, over drinks, I had a conversation about our friendship with another teacher. To sum up the conversation, this teacher was wondering if it was possible to have a completely platonic relationship with a member of the opposite sex, because at least 98% of the time, one of the friends, be it the boy or the girl, has unrequited feelings (however small they may be) for the other person. I can say with full confidence that Vanessa and I have strictly only been friends and that neither of us have had "romantic" feelings or intentions for the other person. We happened to just be two people with shared interests who get along great. And I'm not patronizing her thoughts and opinions here, because I brought it up to her over dinner and she agreed with my sentiments in regards to us.
The circumstance with Vanessa and I are very rare, especially in my case, because I will totally admit to befriending women with innocent feelings attached (most of the time). I have always had a tendency to befriend attractive, attached women because perhaps subconsciously I know (and they know) I don't really have a chance getting in their pants. I'm something of a safety for them, like they know that even if I do have feelings for them, I would never (should I say that) act on them, for fear of screwing up the good thing we have. There have been several women/girls that have come (and gone) in my life that I've been friends with and several times I've felt that I missed my chance, my open window of opportunity, with them, however small it may have been, perhaps because I've always been terrible at recognizing signs/signals women send my way (in particular). I consider myself gun shy, I suppose. I'm a perpetual flirt and I've always been attracted to (beautiful) women; but I'm also an honest, genuine, good guy especially when in a relationship. I can be the ultimate Relationship Guy, when I'm with someone. But, when I'm single (which I have been for the majority of my adult life), I appreciate and get distracted by all the sights I see. I'm a very visually stimulated guy. I love the little things, usually, in a woman. I will totally admit to initially being struck by a lady's nose. I love cute noses. I don't know why, but it's come up on several occasions. Perhaps it started with my initial Hollywood celebrity crush on Sarah Michelle Gellar, because I absolutely adore her nose.
Not sure why I admitted that here, but I suppose it's as good a place as any.
I can still count the "missed opportunities" I've had with lady's that have been friends but could've been something more. Sometimes it pains me to think about what could've been, but I don't dwell on it because I wouldn't be where I am today. And today, I'm in a great place, enjoying my life thoroughly.
................................................................
Film 139
"Pan's Labyrinth"
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
"Pan's Labyrinth" in my opinion is del Toro's Spanish version of "Alice in Wonderland." Now don't get angry with me. Allow me to explain my reasoning. And, yes, I understand that del Toro is speaking more about war and the struggles individuals face during war-time, but I feel like that's one of the subplots that takes the front seat in del Toro's ultimate fantasy film.
It's about an 11 year old girl named Ofelia who is caught up with her mother in the heart of World War 2, as it affected Spain. And it did. Enough to make this little girl retreat into her mind. It seems like a fantasy when she finds a flying insect that looks like a praying mantis following her around and she believes it to be a fairy, so it actually turns into a tiny man with wings (fairy) and it proceeds to lead her into the labyrinth her mother warned her against going in (for fear of getting lost). Once inside labyrinth she comes across a frightening-looking faun who gives her a three-fold mission she must complete to attain/fulfill her destiny. Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. Open your eyes. Look up to the skies and see......(Thank you Queen). Because Ofelia brings her mission with her when she is among the humna beings in her life.
The faun and fairy (as well as the other creatures Ofelia comes across on her journey...a giant evil-intention frog, and a terrible-looking Pale Man who's eyeballs fit snug in the palm of his hands while his skin hangs in old-aged folds off of his Holocaust-victim type body) and excellent comparisons for the humans in Ofelia's reality...her stepfather is a sadistic captain who treats everyone with disrespect, especially Ofelia's mother, whom he seems to treat as strictly his personal breeding machine and he will stop at nothing to make sure he has an heir to his self-important throne. He seems to despise Ofelia and the feeling is mutual. Both worlds/realities are extremely scary, given the context of both, especially for the 11 year old girl.
The faun that Ofelia encounters and whom acts as her "white rabbit" so to speak also reminded me a bit of Morpheus (from "The Matrix). The faun (who remains nameless throughout the film and is definitely not Pan, in fact I'm quite certain Pan is a reference perhaps to some sort of god) has elements/characteristics of good and evil. He speaks sternly and matter-of-factly to Ofelia. He reprimands her when she breaks the rules. He demands from her. But mostly, he is simply offering Ofelia choices. Choices between good and evil. Free will. You have the option to do good, you have the option to do evil. What will be your choice? Ofelia cannot compromise and she cannot find a fork in the road and deviate from her journey to create a different path, hence the labyrinth (one way in and one way out). Yes, there are dangers in the world, even for an 11 year old kid, but we all have choices to make. What will Ofelia do? I don't want to give anything away because after viewing this film for, I believe, the third time since I saw it in the theater and clearly did not understand it then, I would say it is creeping into my Top Five Favorite Films. I might have to watch it again.
Del Toro veers away from being pigeonholed into a specific genre with his film, because it could be considered a fairy tale-children's film (hence my Alice in Wonderland comparison); it could also be a horror and/or fantasy film. But it's really no single genre. It's a perfect blend of everything. It's also a film about war, as I stated before. Del Toro's an asbolute visionary and this is quite possibly his crowning achievement in film. It is a perfect film, and I don't say that often, but this film speaks volumes, both with its story and its presentation.
.....................................................................
Film 140
"Panic Room"
Starring: Jodie Foster, Kristen Stewart, Jared Leto, Forrest Whitaker
Directed by: David Fincher
"Panic Room" is a sort of chess game played out in film where the characters are the pieces and the Chassmasters, all rolled into one. But, you have to remember that it's also a David Fincher film, so the chess game will not be shiny nor happy and the character-pieces will not simply be pawns.
I'm convinced Fincher likes presenting these game-of-chess films. Look at his other works: Se7en. The Game. Both came before "Panic Room." Both were stellar, given the actors who performed in them as the Chessmasters (Brad Pitt teaming with Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey; and then Michael Douglas and Sean Penn went at each other, respectively). In Fincher's "Panic Room" the chessboard is the fancy, luxuriously, grand new condo (complete with a panic room, hence the title). The board is in full view, with great cinematography and the pieces are also never hidden from us. There are great cut-screen scenes where we see inside and outside of the panic room as scenes unfold. The rules are in place. One side wants what is inside the room (money). One side wants the intruders out of the house. Both will go to extreme and any mean necessary to complete their game. The winner will simply be the better strategist. The smarter one.
Here the Chessmasters are Forrest Whitaker and Jodie Foster. Foster plays Meg, a recently divorced, very rich woman with a teenage daughter (played by Kristen Stewart, who looks every bit the 13 year old she plays). Whitaker plays Burnham, a home invader brought into this team of seemingly misfits which include Jared Leto and Dwight Yoakam, who have all been lured in by the tall-tale of millions of dollars hidden away in the house now owned by Foster's character Meg. They want to simply break in, get the money, and get the fuck out of there. Simple. If the house were still empty. Apparently none of them got the memo that it's no longer vacant.
The camera work throughout the film is totally vintage David Fincher. He quickly rose to be a master of psychological thrillers like this (and hello, have you seen "Zodiac" or "Se7en?"). You see, Whitaker's character Burnham spent years building rooms like the one Meg and her daughter have trapped themselves in. He knows how they work, better than they do. He will get in. It's his other pieces that are weak-links. His game begins to fall apart as his team becomes unraveled by all their unsteady hands wanting their piece of the action and loot. Sacrifices are made. Meg's daughter is captured at one point. There, I won't give anything else away, because even though you may feel like you know the outcome, the suspense is totally worth the ride. And who knew an entire film could be centered around such a tiny, confining place such as a "Panic Room?" But, then again, Fincher has also made an intriguing film about Facebook.
.........................................................................
Film 141
"Flirting with Diaster"
Starring: Ben Stiller, Patricia Arquette, Tea Leoni, Alan Alda, Lily Tomlin, Mary Tyler Moore
Directed by: David O. Russell
David O. Russell is finally getting the credit he deserves, with his Oscar-winning "Silver Linings Playbook" film (which I reviewed a few months ago, you know, the film review in which I spewed my undying affection for Jennifer Lawrence). This is a Hollywood guy that's actually been good at what he does for quite awhile now. "Flirting with Diaster" came out in 1996.
He also wrote and directed "Spanking the Monkey" in 1994 (and I think the reason why he wasn't getting the recognition he deserved in the 90s is because Kevin Smith was the prodigal indie filmmaker (but look where his career is these days). In 1999, Russell made "Three Kings" with George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg, oh and Spike Jonze and Ice Cube. He also wrote and directed one of my absolute favorites "I Heart Huckabees" which came out in 2004. Most of my friends didn't like this film because I don't think they got it, so to speak. Existentialism, at its finest. Then he directed "The Fighter" and won some awards for that, as well. He also worked with Mark Wahlberg for the third time. I'm totally convinced that Mark Wahlberg is a great actor, his awful rap career from the early 90s is far behind him now. Either that, or he just has a terrific agent (perhaps the kind of agent portrayed in his now-done HBO show "Entourage" which is said to be slightly biographical, but doesn't star him). And finally, in 2012, Russell wrote and directed "Silver Linings Playbook."
What can be said about David O. Russell is that he has a knack, or a niche, in taking what could/should be a serious subject (re: Existentialism, mental illness, and adoption) and turning it on its head and approaching it with a more comical vein. And, as a viewer, I totally respect that.
But, for this review, I'm looking at his earlier work, "Flirting with Disaster."
Mel Coplin (Ben Stiller) wants to search for his birth parents, because his wife has just given birth to their first son and he can't give him a name without knowing where he comes from. We meet Mel in the adoption agency's office (assumption) and Mel enlists the aid of an official at the agency, named Tina (played just neurotically enough by Tea Leoni- anyone else remember her from "The Naked Truth?"). She is tagging along and helping Mel get in touch with his birth parents as official "research." She wants to videotape the entire thing. Only trouble is: She's going to be trouble (right from the beginning) because she's very attractive, a former dancer with a tight, fit body, and Mel and his wife Nancy (played by Patricia Arquette) are experiencing a sort of post-partum sexual crisis. The introduction of Tina only adds to the married couple's tension. Tina and Mel even make-out a couple of times, before Mel admits he doesn't want to ruin his marriage.
The birth parents search begins in San Diego, where Mel meets his "natural" birth mother, Valeria (Celia Weston), who is slightly off kilter (like everyone else in this film). He finds out he has twin sisters, who are volleyball valley-girl bimbos. Only trouble is: Valerie is not Mel's birth mother. Tina made a mistake. So, it's on the road again, with Nancy in tow, of course. They go to Michigan next, and meet his prospective semi-truck driver father, only to get arrested by some ATF agents (who happen to be a gay couple, one of which is played by Josh Brolin). High jinx ensue, of course, because along the way, Mel's adoptive parents decide to meet up with the trio on the road trip. His adoptive parents are played by Mary Tyler Moore and George Segal (from "Just Shoot Me!").
On the last leg of Mel's search/road trip, they land in Antelope, New Mexico where his real birth parents truly are living. His natural parents are played by Alan Alda and Lily Tomlin (now I bet you can see why this is a true screwball comedy, just looking at the cast). His natural parents are druggies/hippies. They have loads of LSD in their house and one of the ATF agents' dinner food gets laced with some and the third act is pretty funny as everything converges. The sexual tension between Mel and Tina boils to the point where they make-out hard with each other in the hallway of his parents' house while Nancy is having her armpit licked by Brolin's bisexual ATF agent character.
Given the complexities of each character that is introduced throughout the story, Russell seems to let them take over the story and lead it down some twists and turns along the road-map of the plot. The film goes places you don't expect, but you're let feeling happy it went everywhere it did. The end result is a fantastic comedy of errors. It's a fun film to watch, because you can almost bet all the actors had a blast making it, too, which is great to see emulated on film.
I highly recommend this and "I Heart Huckabees" along with "Silver Linings Playbook." You'll have a fun night, laughing hard.
..............................................................................
Film 142
"They"
Starring: Laura Regan, Marc Blucas, Ethan Embry
Presented by: Wes Craven (but lacking any element of "horror")
Here is a film that Wes Craven should take his name off of right away. I don't really know what he saw redeeming about this faux horror film. It's not scary at all. It drags out for less than 90 minutes and doesn't really develop into anything at all. The characters are bland and meaningless. Their acting is terrible as well. The scares are less than mediocre. The plot doesn't say anything either. At best I could have almost seen it as a subplot/episode in WB/CW television shows like "Supernatural" or even my favorite show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," because at least there I would trust the writing and the episode would do something and be just scary enough for a primetime slot. That's about as far as this film should have gone. I can't believe it actually made it to theaters. I can see it, at best, as a straight-to-DVD film, because it certainly doesn't star anyone worthy.
In fact, "Buffy" kind of did this film's plot a couple of different ways. In one episode, Buffy spends time in a hospital and fights off Death, the evil that apparently only children can see (when they are sick). Buffy gets sick so that she can see and fight off the evil. Yes, it was an early episode, so the graphics are cheap, sort of, but it doesn't matter because Joss Whedon and his team are experts at writing. In another episode, our minds are played with a bit, as an entire story takes place, for it only to be revealed at the end that perhaps Buffy has created this entire world of friends and vampire slaying in her mind, because we find her in a mental institution at the end of the episode. It was done well enough that you don't feel cheated out of an episode. Enough of the plot was carried out and characters further developed in one 45 minute episode that you stick with it.
"They" doesn't do anything but disappoint, each grinding minute. It starts with a formulaic prologue, a child is haunted and taken by these "others" that apparently only come out in the dark (so that they cannot be seen). These episodes are referred to as "night terrors" (a real thing).
We meet Julia (played pathetically by Laura Regan) 19 years later, a young woman finishing her master's in psychology. In fact, she is set to defend her thesis at the end of the week played out on the screen. The only trouble is, she was one of the children (in her group of friends) who suffered from these said "night terrors" during which "they" apparently implanted something under her skin which allowed them to track her throughout her life...as well as her childhood friend (played by Jon Abrahams) who goes crazy and ends up killing himself to avoid being taken by them again. These visions and night terrors are really too coincidentally for the plot to really make any sense. It simply drives the inane plot from Point A to Points B and C with no reward at the end.
"They" are these weird insect-looking computerized creatures that stalk their prey. And like most horror films, there's a half-assed metaphor hidden within the script. You see, Julia is in danger of being consumed by her own thoughts, she's being driven crazy by worry and is in danger of being swallowed up by her maddening world (if she doesn't slow herself down). "They" (creatures) are a visual metaphor for the approaching madness. That's why the film ends with her in a mental institution. I get it. She has become consumed and alienated to a place where her fears and worries surround her, in the dark (recesses of her own mind). But, come on, as an audience we're smarter than the screenplay writers, because I think we get it before they reveal it to us.
Thanks for wasting my time. I think I'll go watch some "Buffy" episodes.
Yes, Vanessa and I may seem to do a lot together, but I must reiterate that we are only great friends. Always have been. Always will be (I can hope). We've known each other for almost a decade, after meeting through a mutual friend. We share a lot of common interests- music, shows, movies, palates. A love of breakfast food. I think we've been going to breakfast at least 2 Sundays per month for the past 6-7 years. She's married. Before that, she was in a relationship (a rather unhealthy one, which I stated to her on several occasions, as did other folks, so it's not like I had a hidden agenda of anything- in fact, I consider us almost like brother-and-sister, so everything I've said to her has come from a place of only wanting the best for her). I've been in relationships throughout our friendship as well. I'll admit, the majority of them were unhealthy, too. She's known/met all my ex-girlfriends and has only admitted to liking one of them, whom I think I blew it with, but what can you do. The past is the past.
I've been thinking about our friendship because Friday, after school, over drinks, I had a conversation about our friendship with another teacher. To sum up the conversation, this teacher was wondering if it was possible to have a completely platonic relationship with a member of the opposite sex, because at least 98% of the time, one of the friends, be it the boy or the girl, has unrequited feelings (however small they may be) for the other person. I can say with full confidence that Vanessa and I have strictly only been friends and that neither of us have had "romantic" feelings or intentions for the other person. We happened to just be two people with shared interests who get along great. And I'm not patronizing her thoughts and opinions here, because I brought it up to her over dinner and she agreed with my sentiments in regards to us.
The circumstance with Vanessa and I are very rare, especially in my case, because I will totally admit to befriending women with innocent feelings attached (most of the time). I have always had a tendency to befriend attractive, attached women because perhaps subconsciously I know (and they know) I don't really have a chance getting in their pants. I'm something of a safety for them, like they know that even if I do have feelings for them, I would never (should I say that) act on them, for fear of screwing up the good thing we have. There have been several women/girls that have come (and gone) in my life that I've been friends with and several times I've felt that I missed my chance, my open window of opportunity, with them, however small it may have been, perhaps because I've always been terrible at recognizing signs/signals women send my way (in particular). I consider myself gun shy, I suppose. I'm a perpetual flirt and I've always been attracted to (beautiful) women; but I'm also an honest, genuine, good guy especially when in a relationship. I can be the ultimate Relationship Guy, when I'm with someone. But, when I'm single (which I have been for the majority of my adult life), I appreciate and get distracted by all the sights I see. I'm a very visually stimulated guy. I love the little things, usually, in a woman. I will totally admit to initially being struck by a lady's nose. I love cute noses. I don't know why, but it's come up on several occasions. Perhaps it started with my initial Hollywood celebrity crush on Sarah Michelle Gellar, because I absolutely adore her nose.
Not sure why I admitted that here, but I suppose it's as good a place as any.
I can still count the "missed opportunities" I've had with lady's that have been friends but could've been something more. Sometimes it pains me to think about what could've been, but I don't dwell on it because I wouldn't be where I am today. And today, I'm in a great place, enjoying my life thoroughly.
................................................................
Film 139
"Pan's Labyrinth"
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
"Pan's Labyrinth" in my opinion is del Toro's Spanish version of "Alice in Wonderland." Now don't get angry with me. Allow me to explain my reasoning. And, yes, I understand that del Toro is speaking more about war and the struggles individuals face during war-time, but I feel like that's one of the subplots that takes the front seat in del Toro's ultimate fantasy film.
It's about an 11 year old girl named Ofelia who is caught up with her mother in the heart of World War 2, as it affected Spain. And it did. Enough to make this little girl retreat into her mind. It seems like a fantasy when she finds a flying insect that looks like a praying mantis following her around and she believes it to be a fairy, so it actually turns into a tiny man with wings (fairy) and it proceeds to lead her into the labyrinth her mother warned her against going in (for fear of getting lost). Once inside labyrinth she comes across a frightening-looking faun who gives her a three-fold mission she must complete to attain/fulfill her destiny. Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide. No escape from reality. Open your eyes. Look up to the skies and see......(Thank you Queen). Because Ofelia brings her mission with her when she is among the humna beings in her life.
The faun and fairy (as well as the other creatures Ofelia comes across on her journey...a giant evil-intention frog, and a terrible-looking Pale Man who's eyeballs fit snug in the palm of his hands while his skin hangs in old-aged folds off of his Holocaust-victim type body) and excellent comparisons for the humans in Ofelia's reality...her stepfather is a sadistic captain who treats everyone with disrespect, especially Ofelia's mother, whom he seems to treat as strictly his personal breeding machine and he will stop at nothing to make sure he has an heir to his self-important throne. He seems to despise Ofelia and the feeling is mutual. Both worlds/realities are extremely scary, given the context of both, especially for the 11 year old girl.
The faun that Ofelia encounters and whom acts as her "white rabbit" so to speak also reminded me a bit of Morpheus (from "The Matrix). The faun (who remains nameless throughout the film and is definitely not Pan, in fact I'm quite certain Pan is a reference perhaps to some sort of god) has elements/characteristics of good and evil. He speaks sternly and matter-of-factly to Ofelia. He reprimands her when she breaks the rules. He demands from her. But mostly, he is simply offering Ofelia choices. Choices between good and evil. Free will. You have the option to do good, you have the option to do evil. What will be your choice? Ofelia cannot compromise and she cannot find a fork in the road and deviate from her journey to create a different path, hence the labyrinth (one way in and one way out). Yes, there are dangers in the world, even for an 11 year old kid, but we all have choices to make. What will Ofelia do? I don't want to give anything away because after viewing this film for, I believe, the third time since I saw it in the theater and clearly did not understand it then, I would say it is creeping into my Top Five Favorite Films. I might have to watch it again.
Del Toro veers away from being pigeonholed into a specific genre with his film, because it could be considered a fairy tale-children's film (hence my Alice in Wonderland comparison); it could also be a horror and/or fantasy film. But it's really no single genre. It's a perfect blend of everything. It's also a film about war, as I stated before. Del Toro's an asbolute visionary and this is quite possibly his crowning achievement in film. It is a perfect film, and I don't say that often, but this film speaks volumes, both with its story and its presentation.
.....................................................................
Film 140
"Panic Room"
Starring: Jodie Foster, Kristen Stewart, Jared Leto, Forrest Whitaker
Directed by: David Fincher
"Panic Room" is a sort of chess game played out in film where the characters are the pieces and the Chassmasters, all rolled into one. But, you have to remember that it's also a David Fincher film, so the chess game will not be shiny nor happy and the character-pieces will not simply be pawns.
I'm convinced Fincher likes presenting these game-of-chess films. Look at his other works: Se7en. The Game. Both came before "Panic Room." Both were stellar, given the actors who performed in them as the Chessmasters (Brad Pitt teaming with Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey; and then Michael Douglas and Sean Penn went at each other, respectively). In Fincher's "Panic Room" the chessboard is the fancy, luxuriously, grand new condo (complete with a panic room, hence the title). The board is in full view, with great cinematography and the pieces are also never hidden from us. There are great cut-screen scenes where we see inside and outside of the panic room as scenes unfold. The rules are in place. One side wants what is inside the room (money). One side wants the intruders out of the house. Both will go to extreme and any mean necessary to complete their game. The winner will simply be the better strategist. The smarter one.
Here the Chessmasters are Forrest Whitaker and Jodie Foster. Foster plays Meg, a recently divorced, very rich woman with a teenage daughter (played by Kristen Stewart, who looks every bit the 13 year old she plays). Whitaker plays Burnham, a home invader brought into this team of seemingly misfits which include Jared Leto and Dwight Yoakam, who have all been lured in by the tall-tale of millions of dollars hidden away in the house now owned by Foster's character Meg. They want to simply break in, get the money, and get the fuck out of there. Simple. If the house were still empty. Apparently none of them got the memo that it's no longer vacant.
The camera work throughout the film is totally vintage David Fincher. He quickly rose to be a master of psychological thrillers like this (and hello, have you seen "Zodiac" or "Se7en?"). You see, Whitaker's character Burnham spent years building rooms like the one Meg and her daughter have trapped themselves in. He knows how they work, better than they do. He will get in. It's his other pieces that are weak-links. His game begins to fall apart as his team becomes unraveled by all their unsteady hands wanting their piece of the action and loot. Sacrifices are made. Meg's daughter is captured at one point. There, I won't give anything else away, because even though you may feel like you know the outcome, the suspense is totally worth the ride. And who knew an entire film could be centered around such a tiny, confining place such as a "Panic Room?" But, then again, Fincher has also made an intriguing film about Facebook.
.........................................................................
Film 141
"Flirting with Diaster"
Starring: Ben Stiller, Patricia Arquette, Tea Leoni, Alan Alda, Lily Tomlin, Mary Tyler Moore
Directed by: David O. Russell
David O. Russell is finally getting the credit he deserves, with his Oscar-winning "Silver Linings Playbook" film (which I reviewed a few months ago, you know, the film review in which I spewed my undying affection for Jennifer Lawrence). This is a Hollywood guy that's actually been good at what he does for quite awhile now. "Flirting with Diaster" came out in 1996.
He also wrote and directed "Spanking the Monkey" in 1994 (and I think the reason why he wasn't getting the recognition he deserved in the 90s is because Kevin Smith was the prodigal indie filmmaker (but look where his career is these days). In 1999, Russell made "Three Kings" with George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg, oh and Spike Jonze and Ice Cube. He also wrote and directed one of my absolute favorites "I Heart Huckabees" which came out in 2004. Most of my friends didn't like this film because I don't think they got it, so to speak. Existentialism, at its finest. Then he directed "The Fighter" and won some awards for that, as well. He also worked with Mark Wahlberg for the third time. I'm totally convinced that Mark Wahlberg is a great actor, his awful rap career from the early 90s is far behind him now. Either that, or he just has a terrific agent (perhaps the kind of agent portrayed in his now-done HBO show "Entourage" which is said to be slightly biographical, but doesn't star him). And finally, in 2012, Russell wrote and directed "Silver Linings Playbook."
What can be said about David O. Russell is that he has a knack, or a niche, in taking what could/should be a serious subject (re: Existentialism, mental illness, and adoption) and turning it on its head and approaching it with a more comical vein. And, as a viewer, I totally respect that.
But, for this review, I'm looking at his earlier work, "Flirting with Disaster."
Mel Coplin (Ben Stiller) wants to search for his birth parents, because his wife has just given birth to their first son and he can't give him a name without knowing where he comes from. We meet Mel in the adoption agency's office (assumption) and Mel enlists the aid of an official at the agency, named Tina (played just neurotically enough by Tea Leoni- anyone else remember her from "The Naked Truth?"). She is tagging along and helping Mel get in touch with his birth parents as official "research." She wants to videotape the entire thing. Only trouble is: She's going to be trouble (right from the beginning) because she's very attractive, a former dancer with a tight, fit body, and Mel and his wife Nancy (played by Patricia Arquette) are experiencing a sort of post-partum sexual crisis. The introduction of Tina only adds to the married couple's tension. Tina and Mel even make-out a couple of times, before Mel admits he doesn't want to ruin his marriage.
The birth parents search begins in San Diego, where Mel meets his "natural" birth mother, Valeria (Celia Weston), who is slightly off kilter (like everyone else in this film). He finds out he has twin sisters, who are volleyball valley-girl bimbos. Only trouble is: Valerie is not Mel's birth mother. Tina made a mistake. So, it's on the road again, with Nancy in tow, of course. They go to Michigan next, and meet his prospective semi-truck driver father, only to get arrested by some ATF agents (who happen to be a gay couple, one of which is played by Josh Brolin). High jinx ensue, of course, because along the way, Mel's adoptive parents decide to meet up with the trio on the road trip. His adoptive parents are played by Mary Tyler Moore and George Segal (from "Just Shoot Me!").
On the last leg of Mel's search/road trip, they land in Antelope, New Mexico where his real birth parents truly are living. His natural parents are played by Alan Alda and Lily Tomlin (now I bet you can see why this is a true screwball comedy, just looking at the cast). His natural parents are druggies/hippies. They have loads of LSD in their house and one of the ATF agents' dinner food gets laced with some and the third act is pretty funny as everything converges. The sexual tension between Mel and Tina boils to the point where they make-out hard with each other in the hallway of his parents' house while Nancy is having her armpit licked by Brolin's bisexual ATF agent character.
Given the complexities of each character that is introduced throughout the story, Russell seems to let them take over the story and lead it down some twists and turns along the road-map of the plot. The film goes places you don't expect, but you're let feeling happy it went everywhere it did. The end result is a fantastic comedy of errors. It's a fun film to watch, because you can almost bet all the actors had a blast making it, too, which is great to see emulated on film.
I highly recommend this and "I Heart Huckabees" along with "Silver Linings Playbook." You'll have a fun night, laughing hard.
..............................................................................
Film 142
"They"
Starring: Laura Regan, Marc Blucas, Ethan Embry
Presented by: Wes Craven (but lacking any element of "horror")
Here is a film that Wes Craven should take his name off of right away. I don't really know what he saw redeeming about this faux horror film. It's not scary at all. It drags out for less than 90 minutes and doesn't really develop into anything at all. The characters are bland and meaningless. Their acting is terrible as well. The scares are less than mediocre. The plot doesn't say anything either. At best I could have almost seen it as a subplot/episode in WB/CW television shows like "Supernatural" or even my favorite show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," because at least there I would trust the writing and the episode would do something and be just scary enough for a primetime slot. That's about as far as this film should have gone. I can't believe it actually made it to theaters. I can see it, at best, as a straight-to-DVD film, because it certainly doesn't star anyone worthy.
In fact, "Buffy" kind of did this film's plot a couple of different ways. In one episode, Buffy spends time in a hospital and fights off Death, the evil that apparently only children can see (when they are sick). Buffy gets sick so that she can see and fight off the evil. Yes, it was an early episode, so the graphics are cheap, sort of, but it doesn't matter because Joss Whedon and his team are experts at writing. In another episode, our minds are played with a bit, as an entire story takes place, for it only to be revealed at the end that perhaps Buffy has created this entire world of friends and vampire slaying in her mind, because we find her in a mental institution at the end of the episode. It was done well enough that you don't feel cheated out of an episode. Enough of the plot was carried out and characters further developed in one 45 minute episode that you stick with it.
"They" doesn't do anything but disappoint, each grinding minute. It starts with a formulaic prologue, a child is haunted and taken by these "others" that apparently only come out in the dark (so that they cannot be seen). These episodes are referred to as "night terrors" (a real thing).
We meet Julia (played pathetically by Laura Regan) 19 years later, a young woman finishing her master's in psychology. In fact, she is set to defend her thesis at the end of the week played out on the screen. The only trouble is, she was one of the children (in her group of friends) who suffered from these said "night terrors" during which "they" apparently implanted something under her skin which allowed them to track her throughout her life...as well as her childhood friend (played by Jon Abrahams) who goes crazy and ends up killing himself to avoid being taken by them again. These visions and night terrors are really too coincidentally for the plot to really make any sense. It simply drives the inane plot from Point A to Points B and C with no reward at the end.
"They" are these weird insect-looking computerized creatures that stalk their prey. And like most horror films, there's a half-assed metaphor hidden within the script. You see, Julia is in danger of being consumed by her own thoughts, she's being driven crazy by worry and is in danger of being swallowed up by her maddening world (if she doesn't slow herself down). "They" (creatures) are a visual metaphor for the approaching madness. That's why the film ends with her in a mental institution. I get it. She has become consumed and alienated to a place where her fears and worries surround her, in the dark (recesses of her own mind). But, come on, as an audience we're smarter than the screenplay writers, because I think we get it before they reveal it to us.
Thanks for wasting my time. I think I'll go watch some "Buffy" episodes.
Comments
Post a Comment